Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Espionage (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete without prejudice to the creation of a portal that does this subject justice. MER-C 19:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Espionage


Micro-portal abandoned since 2014. Just a static display of outdated content forks of the leads of 4 articles.

Created in March 2011 by, a multi-user account which has been indfinitely blocked since 2011 for a range of misconduct

There is no selection of topics, and the list of sub-pages at Special:PrefixIndex/Portal:Espionage just shows a static set of pages:


 * Portal:Espionage/Selected article, same topic (Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI) since its only change in 2014
 * Portal:Espionage/Selected literature, same topic (George Orwell bibliography) since its creation in 2014 (see history)
 * Portal:Espionage/Selected operation, same topic (ECHELON) since its only change, which was in 2014
 * Portal:Espionage/Selected biography, same topic (Barrett Brown) since its only change, which was in 2014
 * Portal:Espionage/Selected picture, same image (File:Nrol-39.jpg) since 2014
 * Portal:Espionage/Selected video, same video (File:CollateralMurder.ogv) since its only change, which was in 2014

Per WP:PORTAL, "Portals serve as enhanced 'Main Pages' for specific broad subjects". But this is massively less useful in every respect than the head article Espionage and its navboxes Espionage, Intelligence cycle management, and Soviet Spies.

Two newish features of the Wikimedia software means that the head article offers most of the functionality which portals like this set out to offer. Both features are available only to ordinary readers who are not logged in, but you can test them without logging out by right-clicking on a link, and the select "open in private window" (in Firefox) or "open in incongnito window" (Chrome).
 * 1) mouseover: on any of the link, mouseover shows you the picture and the start of the lead.  So the preview-selected page-function of portals is redundant: something almost as good is available automatically on any navbox or other set of links.  Try it on head article Espionage and its navboxes Espionage, Intelligence cycle management, and Soviet Spies
 * 2) automatic imagery galleries: clicking on an image brings up an image gallery of all the images on that page. It's full-screen, so it's actually much better than even a click-for-next image gallery on a portal.

Similar features have been available since 2015 to users of Wikipedia's Android app.

WP:POG says that unless automated, the content selection should be updated monthly, or preferably weekly. Even on a monthly cycle, this pseudo-portal has missed over 100 consecutive updates, and it is time to stop wasting the time of readers by luring them to this abandoned draft.

Yes, this is theory a broad topic. Wikipedia has extensive coverage of the spies, intelligence agencies, and espionage methods and technologies. But WP:POG guides that portals should be about "broad subject areas, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers", and this has not attracted maintainers.

So I propose that this portal and its sub-pages be deleted per WP:TNT, without prejudice to recreating a curated portal in accordance with whatever criteria the community may have agreed at that time. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Previous incarnation. This portal had a previous, equally inglorious, incarnation. It was created in 2006, and discussed in 2011 at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Espionage, where nominator pointed out that it hasn't been touched since 2006. The result was "speedy delete".
 * Pinging the participants in that MFD:, and the closer @Salvio giuliano. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * keep rather than starting from zero after TNT, i say let there be this skeleton so we could work on it later. I have been trying to work on WP:SPY, and WP:MAFIA; but all of a sudden I got very busy IRL. I will start working again on these two wikiprojects after two months, I mean thats when I can give them satisfactory time. And once the wikiproject is active again, the project members can take care of the portal too. On a sidenote, this discussion might give a little insight. — usernamekiran (talk)  18:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to build a portal on this topic which would actually add value for readers, you would do much better to start from scratch, without this redundant structure of outdated content forks in an attempt to replicate features which are now built-in to all pages.
 * I am not sure what "discussion" you refer to in that link. I see no discussion there, just series of sections with one post each.
 * As to once the wikiproject is active again ... I think you mean "if" it revives. Most WikiProjects are abandoned rooms of tumbleweed, at WT:WikiProject Espionage makes clear this one is no different. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * thats sad, but true; I hope I can clear the weed, and get the wikiproject active again. But are you sure nuking the portal would be better than transforming it? If thats the case, I am happy to see it getting bombed. And honestly speaking, it would take at least (if it happens) 6-7 months from now to make the wikiproject active again. — usernamekiran (talk)  19:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, .  Absolutely sure.  There is nothing here to keep. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - I will address the offer by User:Usernamekiran to rework this portal in a few months. The portal doesn't need reworking in order to assist readers in going beyond the head article to learn about espionage.  The head article is very well linked to related articles, including about the vocabulary of spy-craft and the techniques of spy-craft.  Readers who are interested in learning more about this interesting business would do better to navigate from the article than to use a portal.  The portal has had an average of 10 daily pageviews, and the head article has had an average of 1,408 daily pageviews, and if the reader doesn't want to use links, they can use categories.  (I haven't assessed how helpful the categories are.  The links are very good.)  If the portal is deleted, and Usernamekiran wants to start over using the skeleton, since this proposal is to delete without prejudice, it will be available at Requests for Undeletion.  If you want to work on the portal now, I will support a Relist to see whether you are still interested and making some improvements to it in a week or two or three.  BHG says that the skeleton is not useful, but if you want to try to put meat on it, I would support Relisting, and if you want to unearth the skeleton after it is buried, you can request it.  In the meantime, I am ready to recommend a Delete.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Why not save it off-line, then when and if you revitalize the wiki project you'll have it ready to go. I understand you might argue that it's not hurting anything just sitting here but it sops up time because someone has to glance at it and think about it. That's time better spent on something useful.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The main article is not in great shape (and is tagged).  Why would any reader want to get involved in a largely abandoned out-of-date WP portal on espionage, when the main WP article on the topic is in this poor state?  Any editing resources in this area (which seem scarce) should be directed to updating/upgrading the main WP espionage article. Only after this has happened, will we have the credibility to entice a reader into a portal (nothwithstanding that this is under the assumption that such a portal is also up to date and maintained). Britishfinance (talk) 23:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant to main article and its navboxes. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.